E-mails: Piper Palin pulling cancer survivor grandma's hair "best idea yet"

By GottaLaff

(click on image to enlarge)

Look what my pal Celtic Diva dug up:

It seems that there was one email from Sarah regarding Piper Palin that a bunch of the Teabaggers thought was "so cute." I expected something like the hair-flattening moment at the Republican Convention so I decided to check it out. Imagine my horror when I read this:

From: gov.sarah@yahoo.com [mailto :gov.sarah@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday , January 15 , 2008 9:08 AM
To: Kelly, Russell T (GOV); Tibbles, Michael A (GOV); Frank Bailey ; Perry, Kristina Y (GOV);
Leighow, Sharon W (GOV); Leschper, Beth (GOV); Frye, Ivy J (DOA)
Cc: Balash , Joseph R (GOV); Todd ; Anders, Bruce F (DNR); Irwin , Tom E ( DNR); Rutherford, MartyK (DNR); Sally Heath ; Molly; Chuck

Subject: Lyda vs Piper

Oh no. Last night Piper overheard me griping about Lyda's action - and she said : "Can you pull her hair?"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Frye, Ivy J (DOA) [/O=SOA/OU=FIRST ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=IJFRYE]
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 9:11 AM
To: External Ernailgsp
Cc: fek9wnr@yahoo.com
Subject: RE: Lyda vs Piper

Now that's the best idea I've heard yet! What a smart kid!

So we think it's funny to suggest beating up a grandma who is a cancer survivor? We already knew Sarah's lack-of-class regarding Ms. Green. We have it recorded when she giggled incessantly while Bob Lester called Lyda a "bitch" and a "cancer."

Of course, the spin back then was that she was just laughing because she didn't know what else to do, yet these emails are totally backing the "Mean Girl" persona Sarah's former friends and co-workers have described. Isn't it facinating how the "real" Sarah is leaking out all over from these private-account emails?

Mean girls, indeed.

Mean and inept.

More over at C.D.'s place here.

Fact checking the fact checkers

By GottaLaff

My pal Celtic Diva has kindly given me permission to cross post her blog entries when I see something that bears repeating.

This sure does (Please go to her place to read the whole thing.):

Politifact boasts a 2009 Pulitzer Prize win and they felt the need to take up President Obama's offer of "neutral fact-checking" of the issues discussed at today's retreat. Perhaps they are having an off day but it sure didn't take me very long to find some glaring errors in one of the claims made by Representative Price...fact-checking the fact-checking, if you will.

Here's the email I sent them asking them to correct their errors:

To whom it may concern at Politifact.com:

Rep. Tom Price, Georgia (R) accused the Obama Administration of repeatedly stating that the GOP offers "no ideas." Your article claims that is true, when several parts of your "fact-checking" are glaringly inaccurate.

-- Your article uses as one piece of evidence a speech the President gave at a labor picnic in Cincinnati, September 7, 2009. According to you:

At a picnic with labor officials in Cincinnati, Ohio, on Sept. 7, 2009, Obama complained that the critics of health care reform -- he didn't identify them as Republicans, but it was clear he was referring to them -- were not offering their own solutions. He said, "I've got a question for all those folks: What are you going to do? What's your answer? What's your solution? And you know what? They don't have one. Their answer is to do nothing. Their answer is to do nothing."

However, the actual transcript of the speech tells a different story--he was very specific as who he was addressing--the special interests who benefit if there is no health care reform:

And because we're so close to real reform, the special interests are doing what they always do-trying to scare the American people and preserve the status quo.

But I've got a question for them: What's your answer? What's your solution? The truth is, they don't have one.

It's do nothing.

When the insurance companies and others have expensive ad campaigns out slamming the health care legislation without offering solutions, I find the assuption he's addressing the Republicans to be rather dubious.

--Again, Mr. Price claimed the Obama Administration accused the GOP of offering "no ideas." However, according to your own article, the phrase on a White House blog post and repeated by Rahm Emmanuel and Robert Gibbs was "no new ideas."

President Obama was very clear that GOP ideas provided in committee were already incorporated into the health care legislation and some were rejected. Resubmitting those same rejected ideas would make that an accurate statement.

It is NOT the same as saying they have "no ideas."

Quite frankly, I'm surprised by your sloppy fact-checking. I would respectfully request that you correct your "Truth-O-Meter" so that it is actually more truthful.

You can email Politifact.com at truthometer@politifact.com if you wish to encourage them to correct their website.

You can view the entire video of President Obama at the Baltimore retreat here.

An unlikely lunch date--Alaskan bloggers meet Sarah Palin's lawyer

By GottaLaff

Thomas Van Flein and organizer Liz Behlke

Yesterday I posted Gryphen's version of events, and what a version it was! Today, my sweet pal Celtic Diva has her post up, and has graciously allowed me to share it with you.

Instead, I'll give you a few tease-y excerpts, and send you back to her place for the rest:

First impressions: Thomas Van Flein was charming and had a sense of humor. I was also amused by how he enjoyed the "power" of information. He seemed to get a kick out of watching people's reactions when he'd ask a question he thought would be "unexpected". [...]

After about 15 minutes, I jumped into the deep end of the pool and basically asked Mr. Van Flein why he continues to give the impression that all of the ethics complaints against the Governor have been dismissed when he knows it's not true. [...]

I already expected his reaction and justification, but it was interesting to hear it directly. It's not a surprise that no one seems to take ethics seriously anymore. [...]

Other issues we discussed:

--Trig
--The "pretty" issue
--Jealousy
--Gryphen's and my experiences with the Palinistas this year

To see the details that go with those topics, and to fill in the blanks of the other bits and pieces I gave you, go here.

And go Linda!

Gov. Palin's pick for AK attorney general: Ethics schmethics

By GottaLaff

A Wayne Anthony Ross license plate

I've posted twice about Sarah Palin's horrendous choice for Alaska's attorney general here and here. Now we have a very informative piece from one of my favorite bloggers, Celtic Diva, in which she shares with us her written testimony against Wayne Anthony Ross:

(I wrote my testimony against Governor Palin's choice of Wayne Anthony Ross on the issues specific to ethics. However there are any number of major concerns with this man becoming AG.

Refer to the online archive for Gavel to Gavel. [...] [L]isten to the April 10th House Judiciary Committee hearing and testimony. If all of that doesn't alarm you, I don't know what will... ) [...] [Laffy Note: Follow the link, she provides e-mail addresses for those who want to contact the legislators]

Dear Legislators: Friday, April 10, 2009, I watched the House Judiciary Committee's interview with Wayne Anthony Ross, Governor Palin's appointee for the Alaska Attorney General position. I was surprised when, towards the end, Representative Ramras referenced the ethics complaint I submitted in March. I was then disgusted by Mr. Ross's response: Representative Ramras: "We have a Governor who is provocative in a lot of her actions. Recently it comes to mind when she was in Fairbanks for the finish line for the Iron Dog she was wearing Arctic Cat gear...Arctic Cat letters..." Wayne Anthony Ross: "It was provocative; she looked very good in them, didn't she?" The fact that Mr. Ross thought it appropriate to sexualize the issue on the floor of the House during his confirmation hearing is probably alarming enough by itself. It seemed to add credibility to the Senate and House public testimony from multiple individuals alleging disturbing past negative comments and attitudes from Mr. Ross towards women. However, the focus of this letter is the cavalier way in which Mr. Ross seems to view charges that the Governor of Alaska has behaved unethically. While this attitude is clearly obvious in the previous comment, it is also reflected farther into the exchange between Rep. Ramras and Mr. Ross: Representative Ramras: Presently, General, there are some concerns in this building about the focus of our chief executive because she's taken a speaking engagement in Indiana for a 36 hour period with only 72 hours to go in the Legislative Session. [Laffy Note: My post about this here] Although she's available by phone, there's a reason we have you here in front of us because we're not interested in doing the confirmation hearing telephonically. Nor are we interested in having a Governor available telephonically with only three days to go in the session. So my question for you...as the Governor's attorney as well as the chief attorney for the State of Alaska...how are you going to advise the Governor, with these lucrative offers she has on the table to write a biography and the requirement for anyone who writes a book to take a book tour across the country? Are you going to advise the Governor that this is something that is within her rights and purview or is that something that infringes upon the rights of all Alaskans? W.A. Ross: I don't know how I'm going to advise her because the question hasn't been made and I don't know all the facts. Later on, Mr. Ross gives this response: W.A. Ross:...Whether that's part of her job or not, I'm not making any decisions on that. Whether she should wear Arctic Cat or I should get in trouble for wearing a Steton, I'm not making any decisions on that. If the questions come to us maybe we'll have to make a decision at that time. I'm sure she feels appreciative that you guys are going to miss her for two days while she's outside giving a speech. She's never talked to me about it and I'm sure you'll be in her heart and mind the whole time. Again, he is clearly not taking any of this seriously. He also states that he is not making any decisions on advising the Governor whether or not the above behavior is ethical. Here is the rest of the exchange: Ramras: I would look forward to an opinion from the Department of Law on that point...whether the Dept. of Law will endorse a chief executive writing a book and making a multi-city book tour while she's serving in the capacity of the chief executive. On that point we would like to get an opinion from the Department of Law going forward as we have a new Attorney General. Ross: I think I have a lot more important issues as Attorney General then deciding whether or not the Governor should write a book. Ramras: I didn't ask you if she should write a book. I asked you if she may take prolonged absences from the State of Alaska on a book tour. Ross: I don't have all of the knowledge of the issues facing the Department of Law, but when it comes time that I have plenty of extra time for such things I will certainly devote the time appropriate to such an issue I believe that Mr. Ross needs to read the job description for the State Attorney General a little closer. In a 2007 letter and attachments (starting at page 6) from the former Attorney General, Talis Colberg explains his role as AG to Governor Sarah Palin as the person who is supposed to assist her in understanding her responsibilities regarding her own ethical behavior: Since I serve as your designated ethics supervisor, I want to remind you that the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act requires that all state employees report to their designated ethics supervisors any outside employment or services benefiting their personal or financial interests by July 1 of each year.

So, one of the functions of the Attorney General is to serve as the Governor's designated ethics supervisor, which not only has time-sensitive reporting requirements but would require him to properly advise her if there is a possibility she may be violating the Alaska Executive Ethics Act. I believe that requires Mr. Ross to take action on the issue of ethics whether he has "plenty of extra time for such things" or not. It's an important part of his job. Further, the letter from the former AG lays out more specific guidelines for chief executives: However, the Ethics Act also precludes "the head of a principal executive department of the state" from engaging in "outside employment."l The Office of the Governor is a principal department of the state.2 Therefore, as head of that office, you may not be engaged in outside employment. We construe "employment" to have its ordinary meaning. These definitions are explained in an attachment to the memo for the Governor (page 8), a list of Frequently Asked Questions that looks like it may be given to all new state employees. What's disturbing is that it very clearly raises questions as to the legality of the chief executive officer (Governor Palin) accepting "a book deal." Mr. Ross seems to be completely unaware of this: 3. What does "outside employment" include? • Any employment for which you are paid, but not your state employment. • Examples: a job with another employer, work as an independent contractor, and work in your own business. Also, Mr. Ross seems to be unaware that established DOL criteria may already address the issue of leaving the state for extended travel on a book tour: The statute (AS 39.52. 170(a» restricts public employees from providing services that benefit a personal interest if those services are incompatible or in conflict with the proper performance of official duties. Mr. Ross discussed none of this when asked pointed questions by Representative Ramras. Instead, Mr. Ross gave flippant answers, seemed to dismiss the importance of Executive Ethics Act enforcement and didn't seem to understand the requirements of the Act himself. While I don't expect Mr. Ross to be up to speed on all the requirements of his potential job, I believe he should have at least a passing understanding of some of the more important duties. Keeping the Governor out of trouble is a VERY important duty and not something to be taken lightly. Wayne Anthony Ross's disrespectful attitude during the ethics questioning concerns me for another reason. The Alaska Executive Ethics Act does require that the Personnel Board hire an independent investigator in place of the Attorney General when ethics complaints involve the Governor, the Lt. Governor or the AG him/herself. However, the AG is the head of the Department of Law which still the "gatekeeper"-Dept. of Law employees make the decision whether or not the ethics complaint meets the criteria and is sent to the Personnel Board at all. I am concerned that Mr. Ross may not take the process seriously enough to become well-informed and base the fate of ethics complaints upon unbiased legal criteria. I believe we should all be deeply concerned about the appointment of Wayne Anthony Ross for many reasons already presented to both Judiciary Committees. However, no behavior in front of either Judiciary Committee causes more concern and reflects more directly upon how Mr. Ross may perform at his job than the ethics exchange with Representative Ramras. Ethical government should be a high priority for everyone but especially for the person whose job it is to lead the Department of Law. I urge you to reject the appointment of Wayne Anthony Ross for Attorney General. Sincerely, Linda Kellen Biegel

Sorry for the long post, but I didn't want to edit this.

VIDEO: Fox says we're terrified of Sarah Palin

By GottaLaff

Linda kellen Biegal & Others file ethics lawsuits against Sarah


Celtic Diva just posted the above video and this:

First off, they can do all of this cutting and pasting, but they can't spell my name correctly?

Secondly, they don't know the difference between an ethic's complaint and a lawsuit.

Thirdly, they think that it's a good idea to show the picture of Sarah as a teenager with the "flat busted" t-shirt?

Well, ya just gotta laugh!

Celtic can't spell my name correctly? It's GottaLaff. Wink.

But seriously... how many ways can Faux News embarrass themselves? It's getting awfully hard to keep track.

Another Alaskan blogger's p.o.v.: Hate mail from Team Sarah (Palin)

By GottaLaff

Earlier I posted about The Mudflats' run-in with Alaskan Rep. Mike Doogan after he "outed" her. Now we have another Alaskan blogger to whom I often link, Celtic Diva, who did a little outing of her own.

You'll have to read this to believe it, but here's a tiny morsel:

When hate email started rolling into my inbox, I needed only look to one of the many posts on Team Sarah calling for my head to find contributors to that onslaught:

Reply by Douglas Timbie

Is there a lawyer in the group? Can the frivolous charge-filers Andree McLeod, Zane Henning, Linda Kellen Biegel etc. be given a dose of their own medicine with counter law suits seeking restitution for harrassment. Doesn't Alaska have laws to reimburse the governor when these suits are found to be without merit.

If not, can we get pictures of these locusts, email addresses, and the home addresses, place of work, with maps distributed so these people can be given the Acorn AIG treatment. We should be very pleasant and non-threatening, but flood their emails with thousands of complaints...

Here's a sampling of the hate mails I've gotten, the majority of which were anything but "pleasant":

**WARNING: THE EMAILS AFTER THE FOLD ARE NOT WORK OR CHILD SAFE**

Now by all means, go read the rest of this not-child/work-safe post. It's a doozy.

Finished? Swell. Now everyone has seen for themselves what happens if you dare exercise your first amendment rights around conservative wingnuts.

Speaking of Governor Crassy McClassless, here's another assignment, if you're so inclined: Go read this and this. They are two very revelatory pieces over at HuffPo about our bestest friend and date from hell, the one, the only Palin (wannabe) filmmaker John Ziegler, brought to us via an e-mail from my pal Mark Karlin over at BuzzFlash.

Alaskan blogger gets email from Team Palin member

By GottaLaff

I hope the Celtic Diva doesn't mind my posting her entire entry, but I didn't dare leave out one word out of her exquisite response to the chuckle-inducing email she received from Grandma Palin's peewee-brained sycophantic little disciple:

From: Rick Ward rickward@hotmail.com
To: celticdivaak@yahoo.com
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 6:50:54 AM
Subject: Blog

You are one nasty and mean spirited person for continuing to perpetuate outright lies regarding the integrity of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. Do yourself a favor (as well as your readers) and do your own research on Gov Palin and report the fact to us. If it is so important for you to blaspheme her, spend the money and fly to Alaska and obtain the facts. Best wishes for 2009. Rick

1) I've lived in Alaska for 25 years, my husband and daughter were both born here. Are you in Alaska? Nope...didn't think so...

2) I've met and talked to the Governor...I've gone to the Governor's office for press availabilities...I've sent the Governor's Office records requests...the staff knows who I am. Have you met the Governor? Nope...didn't think so...

3) Governor Palin fights back harder when we hit a "truth nerve." The fact that she put that press release out on official state letterhead could potentially leave her open for an ethics violation. You didn't know that? Nope...didn't think so.

4) Other in Alaskans for Truth and I know and have consulted with members of the Alaska Constitutional Convention (you know...the folks who actually wrote our Constitution?) as well as lawyers who are constitutional experts. Have you read it? Do you know any Alaska Constitution experts? Nope...didn't think so...

5) This is most important to me because I live here, she's my Governor and her behavior affects me daily as one of her constituents. Does it effect you in your day-to-day life? Nope...didn't think so...

Before you lecture me, you'd better learn a little bit about a) the Alaska Constitution b) the Alaska Statutes and c) the Executive Ethics Act...and you'd better have a REAL dog in this fight, not some school-boy crush.

Also, the most common definition of "blaspheme" is "to speak irreverently or profanely of or to (God or sacred things)." Please get some psychiatric help.

Best wishes for 2009 to you as well.

Linda Kellen Biegel
DNCC State Blogger for Alaska

Standing O, Linda!